Preston Leadership Blog

The Power (or Not) of Talk

I recently re-read Deborah Tannen’s groundbreaking article, “The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why”, which appeared in Harvard Business Review a while back (link below). Anyone who wants to improve their influence and effectiveness should read Tannen’s article and commit it to memory.

The real meat of the article, for me at least, was the author’s description of social mores and how men and women learn their most basic relationship and conversational styles at a very young age. And for better or worse, these early lessons carry forward for the rest of our lives.

For women, this can certainly lead to frustration with male-dominated work cultures. At Preston Leadership we often work with high tech clients where the majority of employees are men and women in leadership roles are either wildly successful or struggling for the advancement they seek. There’s not much in the middle.

The Power of Talk brings crisp insight into tendencies we all surely recognize both in ourselves and others. The problem is that these tendencies are mostly subconscious. Handling perceptions can be challenging, and we just may be perpetuating the very things we’d like to erase.

Learning the most effective communication style along with some practical techniques for getting our points across for maximum influence should be a higher priority for most leaders. We encounter many who are smart, ambitious, and experienced but who struggle with why they don’t seem to be advancing at the rate they’d like. The secret may lie as much in how we say things as what we are saying.

Deborah Tannen wrote “The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why” for On Point, a Harvard Business Review series. It is product number 9977. 

 

Open Mouth, Insert Foot

Who hasn't put his foot in his mouth? I know I have. This week a nice little reminder of the gravity of the situation at RIM came across my desk and I had to pass it along:

RIM’s Heins Quickly Lodges Foot in Mouth

New CEO drops a quote that will live in infamy

Jan 23, 2012, 1:38 pm EST   |   By Tom Taulli, InvestorPlace Writer

 If a company loses more than 70% of its value in less than a year, Wall Street usually cheers when a new CEO comes on board. But in the case of Research In Motion (NASDAQ:RIMM), things have not gone according to the playbook. The stock was down more than 6% Monday after RIM announced new leadership.

Then again, the new CEO — Thorsten Heins — seems to be a lackey of the former co-CEOs, Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis. Despite the fact that RIM is getting crushed by Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Google (NASDAQ:GOOG), Thorsten actually proclaimed, “I don’t think that there is a drastic change needed.”

Lots of leaders feel that they must fill every moment of silence with their own sweet voices. There are people who virtually never stop talking. I've railed about this before because it drives me bonkers.

Now, if everything they said was intriguing, insightful, visionary and witty, I could listen all day long. The problem is, I suppose, a difference of opinion. They must have thought their words were all those things, but alas I did not.

It's hard to listen for more than 10 minutes when the content is either full of minutia, scattered all over the place, or full of self-aggrandizing. 

Mr. Thorsten, the new CEO of RIM is either totally out of touch or allowed his mouth to continue after his brain stopped paying attention. No need for drastic change? Seriously?

Just Say "No" to Loud Restaurants with Open Desks

Last Tuesday I scheduled two appointments far apart and at either end of the day, meaning I would be wasting a lot of time driving back and forth. So, at 9pm the night before I searched for a Starbucks or Panera Bread where I could spend about 4 hours between meetings.

Even if I could avoid the unnecessary driving, the problem with restaurants is noise and a lack of space to spread out. I had calls to make, but in the car or at a loud restaurant. Fortunately I remembered a much smarter alternative: Open Desks.

At 9pm on my phone, I was able to easily find an office with a door, a landline, coffee, and Internet halfway between my two meetings. The price was right and the process was simple. The next morning I breezed in, gave them my name, and they led me to my office. After they showed me where the coffee, the copier and the bathroom were, and I was working in under 5 minutes.

I didn’t have to do much to find a perfect place to spend 4 hours. Now that I know about this new “on-call office” in Malvern, PA, I actually look forward to being there - and avoiding down time. 

 

Manage Up or Be Disappointed

The very idea of managing one’s boss (“managing up”) is quickly coming back into the mainstream. Subordinates the world over raise their eyebrows when we suggest that it’s not only OK to manage your boss, it’s something you really must do.

The late Peter Drucker wrote about it in 1999, typically pushing the envelope in his time. Those who admire Drucker, including me, consider NOW to be his time – but that’s for another post.

Many good articles and books have been published on the topic since then.

As you might imagine, there are lots of similarities between managing a direct report and managing a boss. For example, setting expectations. Why do so many leaders fail to manage their boss’ expectations well? Surprises are usually not good. Avoiding conflict now often leads to unavoidable strife later.

My dad liked to say, “If you work for a man, work for him.” He was talking about loyalty. It’s never a good idea to be disloyal to your boss.

Finally, get to know your boss’s communication preferences. Drucker puts leaders into two categories in this regard: readers or listeners. Do you rush into your boss’ office with new information, expecting him to make a decision on the spot? It’s more likely that you’ll get the decision you want if you give him time to absorb the information in writing first. Obviously emergencies are emergencies, but readers strongly prefer a little time to ponder.

Or, do you send your boss volumes of information via e-mail (or paper), only to be disappointed when you learn that she didn’t even read it! Listeners prefer to evaluate facts on the spot, discuss options, and make the call. Volumes of data are not nearly as influential with this style of communication as an overview would be. Give ‘em the summaries.

Interacting with your boss in the most effective way will get you what you want more quickly. It’s really as simple as that. Why do so many people miss this? Send me an e-mail if you’d like to discuss.

You and Your Boss

I read a great blog post by Linda Hill and Ken Lineback in Harvard Business Review called “In Pursuit of a Better Boss”. I liked their emphasis on accountability. In my experience, many “bad bosses” are parties to a dysfunctional relationship; and one that can be fixed if both sides are willing to work at it.

It won’t surprise anyone that good communication is the foundation of a mutually rewarding and productive relationship at work. When we trust each other we can disagree without emotion, and be challenged without getting defensive. Getting all the best ideas out on the table assures the best decisions.

One of the bosses I particularly enjoyed working for at eBay, Mike Bringuel, once said, “Smart people should disagree”. He wouldn’t let his team sidestep disagreements to maintain harmony. After a brief adjustment period, we got used to it and became a much more productive group.

The trend toward more candor at work may sound counter-intuitive in today’s hyper-litigious workplace, but it’s not. The better we get at expressing ourselves in ways that don’t cause problems, the better off our companies will be.

Lots of people are afraid to disagree with their boss or other executives! I hear stories all the time from CEOs who have built teams of yes-people. They complain about not getting honest feedback. Hill and Lineback say that both sides have a responsibility to fix it.

I couldn’t agree more. In work relationships where the stakes are high, there’s a hierarchy and pressure to perform, people can become tentative. What they need to do is learn to speak up appropriately. Bosses need to prove that they can take it by not attacking subordinates who challenge them. It takes time but the payoff is huge.

Ideas on Maintaining Momentum

In my monthly newsletter for April 2011 I wrote about the value of momentum. A lot of people chimed in to say they couldn’t agree more. But what we all lacked were suggestions on how to maintain momentum and how to incentivize others to do the same. So here goes:

1. Establish periodic goals that not only reward but point out the incompleteness of the program that may be put on hold. My theory is that unfinished business bugs people.
2. Don’t approve any new programs unless you feel confident that funding and other resources will be treated as “sacred”.
3. Get support and endorsement from the highest levels of the organization and make any progress updates supplied to the C-level as open and public as possible.

What other suggestions do you have? Discuss.

What Did You Learn From Your First Boss?

What did you learn from your first boss?

Did you learn lessons and examples that still inform your leadership style today? Or did you learn “what not to do”?

We can’t help but learn from every boss we have. Often times these lessons and examples last a lifetime. If your boss is successful, you’d be wise to figure out what makes her successful and do your best to prioritize accordingly.

My first boss was a great example for me in most ways. He was an entrepreneur who never took his eye off the bottom line. While he was a great businessman, I wouldn’t say he was inspiring. He was hands-off and tended to minimize, even trivialize, the challenges others faced.

While his door was always open, his mind was not.

Those who reported to him didn’t find him hard to work for per se, but we often talked about his unwillingness to roll up his sleeves. Interestingly, he assumed the role of “good cop” to his boss’ “bad cop”. I never thought this strategy was wise, but he used it all the time to his advantage. He’d have to “talk to John”, which gave him a convenient way of coming back with an answer that served his needs and essentially closed the subject.

Had he owned all of his decisions, I think people would have respected him even more. He would complain when people went around him to talk to John on their own. What they were really doing is skipping a step that they pretty much knew they’d face if they started with their boss. That was a shame because it didn’t have to be that way.

Getting one’s hands dirty often means digging into the details enough to be able to make a fully informed decision and settling the issue without the need for further review by superiors. When there’s always a parental figure who has the final say, even adults learn to work the system and diminish their boss’ effectiveness in the process. Owning the decision means owning the outcome, and leaders at every level would be wise to make that their priority.

Which Role Do You Play?

As we go about our busy lives, demands on our time and attention pull us in many different directions. We switch back and forth between various roles: executive, father, team member, coach, brother, colleague, etc. It happens continuously.

In the 90’s, my afternoon commute served as a transition period between my professional and personal lives. It wasn’t always easy, but listening to loud rock and roll in the car on the way to pick up my son from daycare seemed to help.

Imagine an actor in a play, switching costumes and characters several times during her performance. It’s difficult at first, but with practice she’s able to make the transitions quite smoothly. The audience marvels when she shows up on stage as a completely different character.

Our global, always-on business environment is teaching us to switch gears more quickly and eventually with less difficulty. But we shouldn’t leave behind the skills and perspectives we use in one role just because we switch to another.

For example, the negotiation skills we develop at work can be applied to other roles we play outside of work. But it doesn’t end there. We also have perspectives that can enhance a team’s ability to see situations from various angles they may not have considered. Relying on the team leader’s emotional intelligence to bring in outside perspectives is not enough.

Diversity in perspective is part of what makes a regular team a high-performance team. You may have a specific area of expertise but you also have valuable perspectives that others might not have. Bring them with you, but be ready to compromise.

Do You Have a “Tell”?

Good Poker players learn to spot other players' "tells", those (mostly) subconscious signals that we send out when we have a good or bad hand. Looking around the table in a certain way, fumbling with chips, and sighing are examples of common "tells". Learning to eliminate one's "tells" is an important skill in Poker and other games that require a degree of deception.

Do you (or does your leader) have "tells"?

I used to work for a great boss who had one. When she asked me if we could "chat" I always knew that something was wrong. But when she asked me if I had a minute or if we could "talk", I knew that the meeting would be positive. Worked like a charm and when I told her about it one day, she had no idea she was telegraphing the nature of her requests. She'd also drink a ton of coffee on the way to work and be so wired when she arrived that everyone would brace themselves for long lists of stuff to do. Empty travel mug in hand meant watch out! But LeAnne was an excellent leader.

For many, silence is a "tell". So many people have told me that when their boss goes silent, they know something bad is brewing. Doors closed? Uh-oh.

Leaders have a responsibility to communicate. This is not optional. Nature certainly loves a vacuum, and in the absence of their leader's voice, people will draw conclusions of their own. We've all seen this happen. Anyone who has had to dig his organization out of a hole created by secrecy at the top knows how difficult it can be. Morale is like an aircraft carrier; it takes time to turn it around. Don't go any farther down a path if the truth will surely require a 180.

Communication is not just talking; it's also listening. Want to engage key contributors? Discuss. Leaders should not strive to have the last word.

Abusing the authority that comes with a leadership position can take many forms, not the least of which is squelching healthy debate because it is uncomfortable. Have the courage to participate in conversations that challenge conventions. Stop a debate only when it becomes disrespectful or tangential.

Learn to be influential. There are millions of brilliant people who are not heard because of poor communication skills. If it is your responsibility to communicate, then work on it as you would any other critical job skill. Charm only goes so far – there are earnest techniques that can bring clarity to complex issues in the workplace and inspire others to higher levels of performance.

 

Again

The English language is full of traps, making it one of the harder languages to learn. Words have two or even three meanings and depending upon their inflection or placement in a sentence, their meaning can be dramatically different. This is one reason e-mail is a challenging medium and why we have created emoticons to help get our true sentiment across.

One such word that is troublesome for me is "again".

Adding a question mark gives "again" a range of meanings, some of which express exasperation. Maybe this is why the word "again" without a question mark can also carry a tone that conveys impatience or even condescension.

Consider this: When someone doesn't understand what you're trying to say, or maybe wants to challenge you, starting your reply with "again", as in the example below, can feel a bit aggressive.

1^st person: "What did you mean when you said "soon"?

2^nd person: "Again, I did not say anything that would imply immediacy. I simply tried to estimate a timeframe."

Inserting "again" at the beginning gives the response a little edge, something like, "OK dummy, apparently you didn't understand what I said the first time" or "How many times do I need to say this so that you will understand?" Not always, but often times this is what I hear.

I think the use of "again" to help with clarification isn't necessary and can sometimes create a bit of defensiveness in the listener. Do you agree with this or am I too sensitive?